Random Thoughts IV: the Abyss Gazes Back

[Ryika]

Yeah, well, the thing is that when one side wants something that is the polar opposite of what the other wants then there's no compromising.

That wasn't the case in the scenario that I constructed though. There was no compromising in the first place, I said we should reintroduce the death penalty so we can get rid of gang rapists, not to please the far right, so if they are happy with that, it's coincidental, and therefor fine with me.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Yeah, well, the thing is that when one side wants something that is the polar opposite of what the other wants then there's no compromising.

You've missed the post where Mouthwash said he doesn't care about the rights of Arabs.

There is always a compromise possible; it's usually the willingness that is lacking.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

There is always a compromise possible; it's usually the willingness that is lacking.

I think this isn't true. There's always a negotiation possible, but that frequently doesn't involve a compromise.

You and your wife want to get a car. She likes the blue one, you like the red one. There is literally no middle ground where you both can get what you want in part by conceding what the other one wants in part. One or the other are going to get their way, and the other isn't.

The negotiation that is available is a tit for tat, wherein whoever concedes to the other on this will be given their way on some other point, likely a point that is equally beyond any compromise solution.

 

[Takhisis]

That wasn't the case in the scenario that I constructed though. There was no compromising in the first place, I said we should reintroduce the death penalty so we can get rid of gang rapists, not to please the far right, so if they are happy with that, it's coincidental, and therefor fine with me.

Pleasing the far right is already a big tell, don't you think?

There is always a compromise possible; it's usually the willingness that is lacking.

Not in cases such as these. Some people, including me, consider that the death penalty is unacceptable. Pandering to neo-Nazis who want to kill everyone and would rather start somewhere is also unacceptable, and as in Tim's more everyday example, it is just an impossible compromise.

 

[Ryika]

You and your wife want to get a car. She likes the blue one, you like the red one. There is literally no middle ground where you both can get what you want in part by conceding what the other one wants in part. One or the other are going to get their way, and the other isn't.

You can't compromise on the color of the car, but you can still come to a compromise. One person gets the color of the car that they want and the other person gets something else in return.

The only situation where no compromise is possible, is if both really insist on the color of the thing, in which case it is again about the people not being willing to compromise, not about the compromise itself being "impossible".

Pleasing the far right is already a big tell, don't you think?

No, and this is exactly the nonsense that should be avoided. If a decision is good, but happens to please the far right, then that's still a good decision that should be implemented. Not making that decision just to avoid giving the far right something that they want is stupid.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Not in cases such as these. Some people, including me, consider that the death penalty is unacceptable. Pandering to neo-Nazis who want to kill everyone and would rather start somewhere is also unacceptable, and as in Tim's more everyday example, it is just an impossible compromise.

Yet still available for negotiation, perhaps. Posit a far right that could actually be trusted, far fetched as that obviously is. If they agreed to support sweeping reforms to the criminal justice system to greatly reduce racial bias as well as providing far more balanced representation to the people who can't just buy their way out under the current system, restocking of the courts with judges chosen for impartiality following dismissal of the obviously partisan, prison reforms to shift the emphasis of the entire system towards rehabilitation rather than punishment; and their only "price" was the availability of the death penalty in cases involving multiple convictions for violent felonies in which the perpetrator displays no remorse, I might have to strike that deal.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I think this isn't true. There's always a negotiation possible, but that frequently doesn't involve a compromise.

You and your wife want to get a car. She likes the blue one, you like the red one. There is literally no middle ground where you both can get what you want in part by conceding what the other one wants in part. One or the other are going to get their way, and the other isn't.

The negotiation that is available is a tit for tat, wherein whoever concedes to the other on this will be given their way on some other point, likely a point that is equally beyond any compromise solution.

Pleasing the far right is already a big tell, don't you think?

Not in cases such as these. Some people, including me, consider that the death penalty is unacceptable. Pandering to neo-Nazis who want to kill everyone and would rather start somewhere is also unacceptable, and as in Tim's more everyday example, it is just an impossible compromise.

I guess we need definitions. Compromise: finding a solution acceptable by the parties involved.

I don't think it is limited to something in between two positions. I want a red car, my wife wants blue. If we choose green is it a compromise? If she gets a blue car and I get a new phone, is it a compromise?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You can't compromise on the color of the car, but you can still come to a compromise. One person gets the color of the car that they want and the other person gets something else in return.

The only situation where no compromise is possible, is if both really insist on the color of the thing, in which case it is again about the people not being willing to compromise, not about the compromise itself being "impossible".

Already addressed. The color of the car can be included in a negotiation, but that's not the same thing as "compromising on the color of the car." In regards to the color of the car one side gets their way, the other doesn't.

No, and this is exactly the nonsense that should be avoided. If a decision is good, but happens to please the far right, then that's still a good decision that should be implemented. Not making that decision just to avoid giving the far right something that they want is stupid.

I believe his point, which is somewhat valid, is that if your "good decision" is pleasing to the far right it certainly merits a whole lot of additional examination to make sure it is really a good decision. That's different from discarding a definitely good decision just because it would please the far right.

 

[Snerk]

Oh I forgot it's used in Civilization 4 (I haven't played in like ten years!), but I do love the Percy Bysshe Shelley poem. I find that part chilling, where he's boasting about his mighty works and how you should fear him, but you despair also if you're mighty realizing for all his greatness he talks about, nothing remains, as a warning to all who think you can gain immortality through power. I love reading your signature every time I read through your posts, I've never seen you trolling but I still think it's brilliant, but also just sort of funny how you can possibly find double meaning in that line you chose, and a moderator may "despair" not out of fear but rather out of pity, lol.

Yes indeed I like to think they send some precious precious despair-pity my way from time to time.

Wow. I took it as a warning and have walked in fear of the mighty Snerk for as long as I've been here. I may have to troll you a bit now, just because you have given me confidence.

You better watch out, you better not cry. You better not pout I'm telling you why. SnerkySnerk is trolling you noooooow..

 

[Takhisis]

Yet still available for negotiation, perhaps. Posit a far right that could actually be trusted, far fetched as that obviously is. If they agreed to support sweeping reforms to the criminal justice system to greatly reduce racial bias as well as providing far more balanced representation to the people who can't just buy their way out under the current system, restocking of the courts with judges chosen for impartiality following dismissal of the obviously partisan, prison reforms to shift the emphasis of the entire system towards rehabilitation rather than punishment; and their only "price" was the availability of the death penalty in cases involving multiple convictions for violent felonies in which the perpetrator displays no remorse, I might have to strike that deal.

And porcus volans sp. will be a viable lifeform by then.

I guess we need definitions. Compromise: finding a solution acceptable by the parties involved.

I don't think it is limited to something in between two positions. I want a red car, my wife wants blue. If we choose green is it a compromise? If she gets a blue car and I get a new phone, is it a compromise?

There's still no red car for you. But in the case of the death penalty it's simply one side (me, possibly tim) wanting it out of here and another (Ryika, AfD) wanting it brought back. Those are the kind of points on which there is no agreement possible.

Yes indeed I like to think they send some precious precious despair-pity my way from time to time.

You need to take the next step and add a zero to your postcount.

 

[Ryika]

Already addressed. The color of the car can be included in a negotiation, but that's not the same thing as "compromising on the color of the car." In regards to the color of the car one side gets their way, the other doesn't.

But that's not what was said; nobody claimed that people must be able to compromise on the color of the car (to stick with the metaphor), the claim was that a compromise is always possible in concept. Which it is, both people can come to the compromise that one person gives in on the color of the car and in return gets something else to make up for it.

I believ his point, which is somewhat valid, is that if your "good decision" is pleasing to the far right it certainly merits a whole lot of additional examination to make sure it is really a good decision. That's different from discarding a definitely good decision just because it would please the far right.

I'm not sure this is true either. Two groups of people can have two totally different reasons for wanting the same thing, just because there is an overlap in the goal, doesn't mean the reasons for that goal need to be looked at with extra suspicion.

If you find yourself wanting the same thing for the same reason as the far right then yeah, that's the point where you should probably reconsider your world view, but that's not the case here.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I guess we need definitions. Compromise: finding a solution acceptable by the parties involved.

I don't think it is limited to something in between two positions. I want a red car, my wife wants blue. If we choose green is it a compromise? If she gets a blue car and I get a new phone, is it a compromise?

I don't agree with the definition, and I will offer an example to illustrate why. If your wife was raised on "the man must be given his way" she may very well accept that letting you have the red car and forgoing the blue car she wants is "just how it goes." That solution accepted by both parties is certainly no "compromise."

Choosing green might be a compromise. If she wants blue and literally cannot abide the thought of red, and you have the same basic perspective but reversed, and both of you like the green, maybe her not quite as much as she likes the blue and you not quite as much as you like the red, that's not only a compromise but probably a really good choice.

If she gets her blue car and you get a new phone that's the kind of 'tit for tat negotiation' I was referring to earlier. It's a very valid form of negotiation that can resolve the conflict, but it isn't a compromise. The weakness that is inherent in such a negotiation is that you are incentivized to really hate the car you are obliged to accept, because the more you hate it the more phone you will be rewarded with.

 

[Snerk]

You need to take the next step and add a zero to your postcount.

My next post will add two zeros!

 

[Ryika]

If she gets her blue car and you get a new phone that's the kind of 'tit for tat negotiation' I was referring to earlier. It's a very valid form of negotiation that can resolve the conflict, but it isn't a compromise.

Of course it's a compromise, just not a compromise on the thing that was at the focus of the conflict. Both sides give something they value as less important than the thing they get in return.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

But that's not what was said; nobody claimed that people must be able to compromise on the color of the car (to stick with the metaphor), the claim was that a compromise is always possible in concept. Which it is, both people can come to the compromise that one person gives in on the color of the car and in return gets something else to make up for it.

A point of definitions. For me, when you introduce an outside area of balance that's negotiating, and is an option chosen specifically in acknowledgement that the issue at hand offers no opportunity for compromise.

Now, if you give in to my definition, I promise to reward you later.

 

[Takhisis]

If you find yourself wanting the same thing for the same reason as the far right then yeah, that's the point where you should probably reconsider your world view, but that's not the case here.

The thing is, do you really want the far right to get away with stating that people can be legally killed by the state? Perhaps you're too far removed from it, but death squads is the very near past for me IRL, so the consequences of having a legal death penalty are perhaps clearer to me than to you. As Traitorfish pointed out, once you allow for people being executed for some reasons then you're changing the discussion from whether people have the right to live to when do they, because it's then obvious that they do not necessarily or permanently have the right to live.

My next post will add two zeros!

Do a hundred more and you'll get another zero.
Do four thousand more and you'll get yet another zero.

Margins are a beach.

 

[Snerk]

Imma get all the zeros!

 

[Ryika]

The thing is, do you really want the far right to get away with stating that people can be legally killed by the state? Perhaps you're too far removed from it, but death squads is the very near past for me IRL, so the consequences of having a legal death penalty are perhaps clearer to me than to you. As Traitorfish pointed out, once you allow for people being executed for some reasons then you're changing the discussion from whether people have the right to live to when do they, because it's then obvious that they do not necessarily or permanently have the right to live.

Now we've switched topic again. I'll take that as an agreement on the statement that mere advocacy for the same outcome does not in itself constitute a problem.

As for the death penalty... I already acknowledged earlier in this thread that my post about bringing back the death penalty was mostly an emotion-based, heat of the moment post as a response to a specific, and that I acknowledge that from a rational perspective, it would be a stupid and immoral implementation.

A point of definitions. For me, when you introduce an outside area of balance that's negotiating, and is an option chosen specifically in acknowledgement that the issue at hand offers no opportunity for compromise.

Now, if you give in to my definition, I promise to reward you later.

Clever!

But I agree, our "disagreement" is based on using different definitions, not on an actual disagreement.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Clever!

But I agree, our "disagreement" is based on using different definitions, not on an actual disagreement.

Now for your reward.

Consider that there is a wide world of negotiation, in which the relatively small subset of compromise is a small part. I already acknowledged the tit for tat, and volunteered a critique of its greatest fault. With that fault in mind the possibility for a good outcome is enhanced, should the tit for tat negotiation be chosen. So now there are two potential forms of negotiation available to resolve a conflict. Negotiations that are far more complex can be examined, their weaknesses observed and compensated for. That allows for solution of more complex conflicts where the simplification "well, we need to find a compromise" just falls flat.

Explore that new world.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

I've been told that my singing sounds like a dying cow. They needn't insult the poor cows.